Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/David Fuchs

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

David Fuchs[edit]

Final (65/0/0); Ended Sun, 13 May 2007 03:13:45 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, please welcome David Fuchs (talk · contribs) into the arena, he's been a model Wikipedian since 15 October 2005. When I first saw david, I was extremely concerned about his username, I misread the h for a k in his last name, luckily I took a second glance before I acted! Right, where do I start..... An avid gamer, he has significantly contributed to 2 featured articles (Halo:Combat Evolved, Halo 2) and helped bring 5 more to good article status (Covenant (Halo), Golden Sun, Halo 3, Iridion 3D, The Flood (Halo)). In my opinion, this shows a great understanding of the notability criteria. David is a member of WikiProject Nintendo, WikiProject Dinosaurs, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles, WikiProject Halo and WikiProject Strategy Games - this shows a great ability to work as a collaborative which is often essential to administrators. David also contributes to AfD where he gives thoughtful and policy related comments, showing a firm understanding of the deletion criteria. David actively welcomes new users and has adopted 3 people, an admin should understand that new users are not aware of our policies and guidlines so should help, rather than bite them - David assumes good faith at all times with these users and his helpful comments to his adoptee's show that he is more than able to interact well with the newbies. David would be a great asset to the administration, with his firm grasp of notability and deletion criteria, he could help take the burden off CAT:CSD and WP:AFD. He is certainly dedicated to the project and I ask that you help me give him the tools so he can further his wiki-work. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. David Füchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My name is German for 'fox', just so's you know that it is indeed my real name. In English, most people say it like it rhymes with 'pukes'. Go figure. ;) 23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Anywhere its needed. From my experience at RC Patrolling, I can say that WP:AIV is usually covered; the reports I've submitted have been cleared in minutes, though on higher vandalism days this could change. I would say that WP:CSD is where I'd devote much of my time. As I go through the Special: New Pages area, I often find lots of cruft, that obviously should be deleted, and mark it as such. The problem is that since there is such a backlog, there's a long delay and often the creator removes the notice, making things difficult (as a regular user I often keep speedied pages open to guard against this thing, which ends up crashing my browser... :( ). Having made requests for/having experience with page protection (and knowing how important it is on some pages where juvenile behavior is frequent) I would proll'y also help out at WP:RPP. Finally, I'd say there's always room for more helping hands at WP:AN.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Hard to pick something. I can't say that in the grand scheme of things my edits to video game articles are that essential, but they do come with their own challenges (such as anon. users posting HALF LIFE2 IS BETTER NOOBZ and such). I suppose getting Halo 2 to FA was a significant accomplishment, as well as a learning experience. I essentially got it single-handedly to GA, but FAC was much more nitpicky and agonizing than I anticipated. A few users (especially Sd31415 stepped in and helped me with reference citations and more, and showed me how much you need the other editors out there. In general my additions to the Halo universe have been greatest: I'm still planning on getting Flood (Halo) to FA and List of Halo characters up to GA and beyond at some point.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I can say I was a regal ass when I came to Wikipedia, and I have proll'y had my big slice of issues. One of the biggest was with User:Editingoprah, who ended up violating the 3RR over some (badly sourced) criticism I added to the Oprah Winfrey article. Eventually it turned into a sock case, which also implicated User:Timelist. I was too angry and too stupid to be civil. It burns me that both users are no longer on Wikipedia: socks or no, I would hate to think I'd driven one or more users away from Wikipedia.
A little more recently, I exchanged some heated words with some Gundam fans over some AfDs of some 'mechs. Once again, I kinda blew my stack at some, including Kyaa, who were on defense. Ultimately, though, I got it together and me and Kyaa are now good friends. I've learned to stay civil no matter what, and if anything rather be humorous than snarky.
A question from bainer (talk)
4. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?
This is I think the stickiest of Wikipedia's policies, but perhaps the most needed as well. Obviously, you shouldn't ignore the rules for your own motivations- like if as a moderator I closed a AfD that wasn't going in my favor, et al. I would say the best use of IAR is by using IAR sparingly. If Wikipedia's integrity is at stake or something equally dire, then it might be justified. All in all however, in 100 possible cases, I'd say 90% don't require use of IAR, just communication. Still, it's there when you need it. 13:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
5 "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced [or poorly sourced]... Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked" (from WP:BLP). How rigorously would you enforce BLP policy?--Docg 02:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having gotten into a tussle back in November about this, I would say I came away with an attitude of "better not to". I don't believe blocks are usually necessary, but warnings are. For instance, over at Ann Coulter there was a feud about whether or not a women's suffrage quote was needed. The problem was eventually solved on the talk page; I believe that warnings for BLP violations should direct the offenders to discussions first. Of course, if they pursist in putting bad POV language and refs in, blocks should be considered.
6. In closing an Afd of a low-notability biography, if it appears that the subject of the biography has requested deletion, what weight (if any) would you give this information?--Docg 02:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... never actually thought about this. I guess I would say that it comes down to whether you accept the stock of the subject or the will of the community. If the AfD was receiving plenty of 'deletes' anyway, it would certainly make the job easier... but I would find it hard to respect the wishes of the subject if notability had been clearly established. What if Christopher Reeve popped out of his grave and disliked the article? Should we delete someone who is evidently pretty important? In cases like this, I would have to say the will of the Encyclopedia should come before the will of the subject.
7: In your own words, what is a "free encyclopedia", and of the 2,900 edits you've made, which do you feel most significantly helped to help build one? — CharlotteWebb 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A free encyclopedia, like (shock) wikipedia, I believe, is a continually growing expression of our society. That's not to say it should be badly written or contain everything on the globe; but it can and should be detailed and can contain much more knowledge than any stodgy old reciprocal of knowledge. My Advanced Placement English test uses Wikipedia as a source! It certainly shows how important it's become. Of my edits, I would say all have helped build on to it, if not in the largest and most profound ways. I consider my edits a small improvement in a small space, but that's only because better editors than me have come before. 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That is an excellent description of an "online collaborative encyclopedia" which Wikipedia also is. What makes it "free", and how have you helped to make it more so? (hint: "you need not pay to read it" is not the correct answer). — CharlotteWebb 17:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, totally skipped that part of your question, didn't I? Well, let's see, what makes it "free"? Besides the gratuitously obvious 'Wikipedia doesn't charge', I suppose you could also say that in terms of content, theoretically everything on Wikipedia is non-copyright violation stuff- in essence, everyone is contributing their time to creating a synthesis work, with no stipulations. As it's all done under the GFDL (I think its a rather strange name, but okay), you're basically telling people- "okay, put whatever you want on it, but you won't get paid." On paper, I don't think many people would have believed it would work, but it certainly has. In terms of what I've done? Well, last time I checked, I wasn't ripping off information from somewhere else, and I put together some articles... not really sure what you're reaching for, here, Charlotte- you'll have to let me in on it at some point. :) 22:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

8. Optional question by Snowolf (talk) CON COI - : Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? (just answer yes plz)

A: Yes. :) 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/David Fuchs before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Comment Regarding "free", please read up on gratis versus libre; this is why the German Wikipedia is called "die freie Enzyklopädie" instead of "die kostenlöse Enzyklopädie", for example. I'd also like to see a more committal answer about handling a biography AfD where the subject wants it deleted, not because I care so much about candidate's actual answer but because more thought should go into answering these types of questions. Candidate seems like a good editor all around, if a bit weak (for now) on larger issues of policy and wiki-philosophy. 75.62.6.237 08:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Strong support as nom - best of luck! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I see no reasons not to support, everything looks good. Good luck :-). Matthew 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support as imaginary co-nom!!! ;) Majorly (hot!) 23:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: Nice amount of contributions, excellent quality of contributions, a great edit summary usage, I'm impressed. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 23:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Contributions in WP:NAMESPACE are possibly marginally low, but not low enough to fail to suppoert.--Anthony.bradbury 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost 20% of all contribs! Ryan Postlethwaite 23:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't say I've been the most active critter there recently, the last month or so I've been in serious article writing mode. David Füchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I foresee no problems - should do a fine job. JodyB talk 23:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Again, I see no problems with this candidate. (aeropagitica) 00:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Get on it. Dfrg.msc 00:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Fuch yeah! --Infrangible 01:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "David assumes good faith all the time". Say no more.--U.S.A. cubed 01:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per Matthew reason also good luckOo7565 01:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Qualified, to say the least. --S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Lots of edits, and I think I trust him to do what he said. Assasin Joe 03:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per nom. —AldeBaer 05:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Qualified...'nuff said! Jmlk17 06:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Can't recall any personal interaction, but do know that the username has always been associated with good stuff. And with a nominator like that, I'm honour-bound to support. :) – Rianaऋ 06:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Should do well. Nice work on Halo 1 and 2. James086Talk | Email 07:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support - good luck! The Rambling Man 08:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Looks like a great candidate for the mop and bucket, with the current backlogs at CAT:CSD, you could prove an asset there. Best of luck! The Sunshine Man 09:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Let me pile on to this long list of supports. You deserve the mop! Sr13 (T|C) 10:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - per Ryan and Matthew. Looks good. Moreschi Talk 11:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per all support comments. Captain panda 13:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 13:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Not enough Edits (less than 3000) but is vastly experienced and has contributed significantly towards Wikipedia Projects...----Cometstyles 14:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Being around a long time counts for something even if one doesn't spend hours editing every day. It shows. Good luck. --Shirahadasha 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, definitely. --Phoenix (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Very experienced editor. -Mschel 16:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - more than adequate experience. Addhoc 16:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - fully qualified candidate. (I recall strongly disagreeing with him about something a few weeks back, but I don't recall what it was, and anyway he might have been right, so this doesn't reduce my support level.) Newyorkbrad 17:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I've seen him around, good user. —Anas talk? 18:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I had nothing but good encounters with and seen nothing but good work from David. I have no doubt that he will do a great job with the extra tools. -- Kicking222 18:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support meets my criteria. — The Future 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. You not an admin already? Support. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 18:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  35. Fuch Yeah! Support I first saw this user around a few months ago, and immediately considered a nomination for adminship. I was surprised that David was not a totally experienced editor on Wikipedia, but judging from what I saw, I knew he was qualified from that point on. David's a great editor, and a great candidate for adminship. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support I know David Fuchs because he was the user who reviewed me back in January.1 This is a decent user with a decent nominator. Acalamari 21:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support. Looks like I'll have to find some other users to keep tabs on... bibliomaniac15 22:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support great candidate. Darthgriz98 23:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Yah. Daniel Bryant 00:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Húsönd 01:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support A good user I've interacted with several times. Adminship's no big deal, but I'd support even if it were. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, good user. Kjetil r 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. I strongly refrain from opposing. >Radiant< 09:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Kafziel Talk 12:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Does excellent work and I've had good interactions with him. Pagrashtak 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Sup - Past interactions with this user make me believe that he will use the sysop tools wisely. -凶 16:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Of course -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Yep! - Alison ☺ 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - An outstanding editor and worthy of adminship. Qjuad 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support per my comments below and an excellent contributions record. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support--MONGO 04:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I wish all RfA noms were this easy to support. --Dweller 11:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - need a mop? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support experience with a variety of different things - will make a good admin. --Bachrach44 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support User has been around for enough time already. Also, he seems to be a quite experienced user; I noticed this when he reviewed Age of Empires III in its request for GA and gave us some tips on how to improve it... Following those tips, the article ended up passing the requirements. Also, with so much support, I suppose he is agreat user for the task! ♠Tom@sBat 23:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Great editor that will be good admin. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 19:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support good contributor and all that jazz. --Ouro (blah blah) 19:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I have no doubt Dave will be a fine admin. Good luck! · AndonicO Talk 07:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I particularly like your reasonable answer to question 5, about when (not) to block users.DGG 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Sarah 14:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Seems pretty good. Answer to 7 is a bit weak but can fixed by some reading :) I see a good faith nomination in the AfD cited in the Neutral section, and admins aren't expected to be saints so we can forgive a little frustrated sarcasm now and then. --kingboyk 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, no problems with him.--Wizardman 15:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support ElinorD (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. WjBscribe 01:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral per the following comment in this relatively recent AfD discussion: "Withdrawing nom now that someone actually stopped whining 'but he is notable' and dug up some sources" (see diff). Also, per the sentiment expressed in the comment just below David Fuchs': "AfD should not be used to prod for sourcing." -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A comment on that; Timothy Noah's notability was not determined when I started the AfD. To this date, it still does not have multiple independent sources- only a bio blurb from the web site where he works. It was not simply a lack of sources for which I nom'd it. I only changed my mind after talking with some of the users who were able to prove that he was/is indeed notable- and yet you don't really know that from the article in any case. David Fuchs(talk / frog blast the vent core!) 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response ... that clarifies the issue quite a bit. As the "whining" comment seems to be a single incident, I think it would really be nit-picking on my part not to support. Switching to support. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/David_Fuchs&oldid=1089910731"